User:Kenza23/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: (link) Organ printing
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose this article to evaluate because the topic interests me and I'd like to learn more about it. I also chose it because I can choose a lot of different things in the article to edit.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The Lead includes an introductory sentence that is concise, but could give more information about the article. There is a brief description of some of the article's sections, but it could be improved. The lead does not include information that is not present in the article. The lead is very concise, and could be a bit more detailed.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The article's content is very relevant to the topic, and is up-to-date. There is some content that could probably be combined. The article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps and does not address historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is neutral, but could use more professional language. There are are a few semi-biased positions. There aren't really under or over represented viewpoints. The article doesn't really attempt to persuade the reader.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The references need a lot of work. Many of the cited sources are from news pages and magazines, and need to be thoroughly checked for bias. They are probably not the most thorough sources available, although they are pretty current. The sources seem pretty diverse - there are a lot of different authors. The links work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The article is concise and clear, but needs to be edited for more professional language. There are no grammatical or spelling errors. The article is extremely well-organized.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
The article includes a few images that enhance the article. The captions could be improved. In the talk page, there was discussion about the copyright, so it is unclear if they adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. The layout of the images could be improved.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
The talk page has an outline and additional content comments that are pretty recent. The article is rated as C-Class. There really isn't much discussion in the talk page, just someone posting about the edits they made.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
The article is C-Class, and needs a lot of work. The strengths of the article are that is has a good basic outline and a lot of general information, but the weaknesses are that the sources aren't the best and the information isn't complete. It is pretty poorly developed and is going to need a lot of work.

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: